Workers’ Unity and Intellectualist “Trends”

Published:Put PravdyNo. 85, May 13, 1914.

      Published according to the text inPut Pravdy.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1972,

      Moscow,Volume 20,

      pages294-297.Translated:Bernard Isaacs and The Late Joe FinebergTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Inthe course of their movement’s progress, the
class-conscious workers constantly look back on the road this movement has
travelled and constantly consider whether it is the right one, and whether
it can possibly be improved.

Ofall the classes in Russia, not a single one, not even the educated
and wealthy bourgeoisie, discusses its tactics, that is, the direction and
the methods of its movement, so outspokenly, clearly, and as far as
possible openly as the working class does. Only people who are
shallow-minded or who fear the participation of the broad masses in
politics can think that the open and heated controversies over tactics that
are constantly to be seen in the working-class press are inappropriate or
unnecessary. As a matter of fact, it is these heated controversies that
help and teach all the workers to discuss their own, labour, policy from
every angle, and to evolve a firm, distinct and definite class line for the
movement.

Theworkers employed at the Stationery Office recently gave a very
convincing demonstration of what the attitude of the class-conscious
workers is, and should be, towards controversies over tactics.

InPut PravdyNo. 68, they wrote: “We wish to point out to
comrades in the Stationery Office who responded to the call of the
supporters ofSevernaya Rabochaya Gazeta, and made equal
collections for both newspapers in the belief that this was a step towards
unity, that we consider this step wrong, one that will not lead to the
unity of the working-class movement, but, on the contrary, will put offthe day when the workers will unite under the single banner of Marxism. Let
us take the following example. Let us assume that two men are arguing
heatedly over a question that concerns us, that this argument annoys us,
and we want to put a stop to it. What should we do under the circumstances?
Clearly, we should ascertain which of the two is in the right and take his
side; the one who is wrong will then see that he is mistaken, or, if he
does not see his mistake, will peter out and stop arguing. But if we
support and encourage both disputants, the argument will never cease.”

Thisis what the workers of the Stationery Office wrote. Their simple
explanation, which every worker understands, is unassailable.

“Equal”assistance or the desire to merge, or “unite,alltrends” (which, incidentally, is what Duma sympathisers with
liquidationism are saying) actually amounts to a desire to order the
workers about from outside in the belief that the workers themselves are
unable to “grasp these things”. Any little group of intellectuals can
publish a pamphlet or a paltry journal, and proclaim themselves a
“trend”, as, for example, the group of the anti-Marxist philosopher
Bogdanov, or Trotsky’s group, or N. N. Himmer’s, which vacillates between
the Narodniks and the Marxists, and so forth.

Thereare any number of “trends”, and the workers are told: help them
all “equally”, recognise “all trends”!

Naturally,any worker who is at all class-conscious will ask: What is
the argument about? Aboutmystruggle? Aboutmypolicy
and tactics? AboutmyParty?

Ifso, then I will work it all out for myself, gentlemen, and I will
proclaim asmy ownonly those tactics I approve of and agree with.

Thisis as clear as daylight.

Itis only because there is no free press in Russia and because there
are still lots of workers (especially in the provinces) who have seen one
or another working-class newspaper for the first time and are as yet quite
“unable to grasp” the problems of working-class policy—it is only
because of this that it is possible in Russia for the intellectuals to try
to run the workers by appealingto them to recognise “all trends” and to assist them “equally”.

Inthe market-place it often happens that the vendor who shouts loudest
and calls God to witness is the one with the shoddiest goods for sale.

Inthe market-place of intellectualist fuss and bustle it often happens
that those who shout loudest against running the workers are the very
intellectuals who try to do so and proclaim the formation of a countless
number of anti-Marxist and anti-proletarian “trends”.

TakeSt. Petersburg. No man in his right mind can deny that, compared
with the provinces, the workers in St. Petersburg are more cultured and
intelligent, more accustomed to and capable of independently “grasping”
all questions connected with the theory of Marxism and the practice of the
working-class movement.

Whatdo we find there?

TheSt. Petersburg workers didgraspthe question, and
recognised thePravdisttrend as the right one.

Theoverwhelming majority of the workers in St. Petersburg declared in
favour of Pravdism and proved by action that they recogniseonlythis “trend” astheir own.

Inthe provinces the Pravdists preponderate to a lesser extent, but
even so they still do preponderate. This has been proved during the last
two years by the facts about the workers’ groups, facts which are
“unpalatable” to the opponents of Pravdism, but which remain facts for
all that.

Themajority of class-conscious workers discussed the question, weighed
the arguments for and against the various tactics, and recognised the
Pravdist tactics astheir own. Attempts to thwart and to disrupt
the unity and will of this majority of workers are now being made by the
founders of the intellectualist “trends” of liquidationism, Trotskyism
(Borba), the mixture of Narodism and Marxism (Mr. Himmer’sSovremennik[1]), and others.

Weare convinced that all these intellectualist “trends”, preaching
anti-Marxist ideas or urging concessions to them, will fall to the ground
upon impact with the class-consciousness and the will of the advanced
Marxist workers, The example of St. Petersburg confirms our conviction.

Itis highly amusing to hear the intellectualist founders of groups and
“trends” that are trying to disrupt the unity of the workers vociferating
about “unity”. They are against unity of the workers, which has been
achieved in fact, and are for unity of the intellectualist trends, which is
promised in word.

[1]Sovremennik(The Contemporary)—a literary and
political monthly published in St. Petersburg in 1911–15. A group of
Menshevik liquidators, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Popular Socialists, and
Left liberals formed around tile journal, which had no contacts whatever
with the working-class masses. A. V. Amfiteatrov played an important role
in it at the beginning of its existence, and in 1913–15 it was headed by
N. Sukhanov (N. N. Himmer).